Mr_Knight wrote:The fact that the story ends with a women and android head flying off in a jockey ship to their home planet makes a sequel almost impossible. Â I'd love to know who approved that shit.RasDam wrote:I doubt this will make enough money to get a sequel.
ÂFrosty wrote:I really don't get the point of having Guy Pierce in there as Weyland. It would be interesting hearing their justification for casting him.
Unlikely wrote:I enjoyed this film quite a lot. HOWEVER, it all seemed to be pointing towards the engineers' ship being the one discovered by the Nostromo's crew in Alien, and yet the Space Jockey chap wasn't chest-bursted in his chair, he was chest-bursted somewhere else. If it wasn't the same ship and planet, then why the hell set absolutely everything up, including creation of a Queen to lay the eggs, as if it was? Why? Why?
Unlikely wrote:There are a lot of whiny nerds around, Gremill.
OK, I accept your explanation, but surely it would have made more sense just to label the planet LV-224 or whatever the one in Alien was called, have the Engineer die in his chair, and let the whole thing be (near enough) consistent with Alien. Odd.
Aaroncupboard wrote:I think it could have worked if they had shown more of him as a young Weyland through advertising for his company (I think they did this as part of a viral before the film).
Turtle o Wurtle wrote:I don't think people are getting stupider, more that more stupid people are going to see sci-fi than did 30 years ago. Everything's mainstream now, so everything is dumbed-down, diluted, homogenised and hamstrung by committees and test screen feedback. Back in the day, I think films were made more for specific audiences, audiences that already had a grasp of basic concepts tied to the plot and setting of a film. Now, we have these dire, exposition-heavy scripts and generic characters that everyman can grasp, affiliate and connect with. Except that doesn't work. Well, it may work on a very superficial level for the majority when you show it to enough people, but I've always found things that appeal to the masses to invariably be weaker pieces of Art because of it. There are some very rare exceptions. When I see Sc-Fi, I want to see Sci-Fi. That is, brilliantly envisioned future technology set in a lonely, paranoid, claustrophobic environment. I don't need romances, bucket loads of hand-holding exposition and other crap thrown in to please Johnny chav at the local multiplex. Fuck it. Bring back the 70's. It's been downhill from there.
g.man wrote:They're more likely to get Duncan Goodhew to write it. tbh g.man
revelthedog wrote:
That's why they see Nolan as a genius.. He's telling complicated stories.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!